> Nothing, to me they're just the next group within an orchestra (strings,
> wood, brass, percussion, chrom.percussion, choir, piano, synths) for the
> simple reason they can create sounds you can't produce with acoustic
> instruments, and iirc that was Jerry's arguement as well when he used
> them. It's just that some ppl think synths are evil and non-musical.

While I agree with you on all counts, the purpose of synths and sampling was initially to create sounds that could not or would not be produced by a human musician. This has led to replacing session players with synthesizers, putting some artists out of work which is where the real criticism comes from, such as Universal's decision to hire Tangerine Dream to make a synth score for the domestic release of the film LEGEND. It was quick and painless, except that it really didn't enhance the narrative like Goldsmith's score did because it lacked breath, something you can only get from a collective of accoustic musicians on a soundstage.

The economics of synthesizers is alluring to producers and composer alike. Why pay for a string section on limited time, when you can have one at your fingertips at any time, and at a fraction of the cost?

Thankfully the creative genius of Herrmann and Goldsmith proved that synths have a place but not a dominant one in the creation of film music, and should only be used when it enhances or off-sets the rest of the score. Goldsmiths use of syntehsizer for the score to HOOSIERS is a prime example of the use of synth as a unique addition to a traditional film formula, that enhances the orchestral crescendo at the films climax.